I can't see it happening due to attachment of some coaches to their teams (same reason i don't see realignment ever happening) and also because the coaches at the top BCS type schools would have a serious and legitimate beef, but closing down about half the game a day worlds would be great for the overall game. Suddenly there'd be no more half empty worlds and simai would be one of those things people reminisce about like pre-potential and dilemmas... If there could be some way to get the coaches who have gotten to the highest levels would commit to some kind of lottery or draft or something of the new jobs, that would be great. It might be kinda fun to draft your new BCS club...

I even have a half baked (but man is this stuff good) proposal - take all the coaches at all the schools from all the One a day worlds. Retire all those worlds and their records become the Whatif College Athletics Association Hall of Legends. Create three new one game a day worlds. I'd suggest naming them Boeheim, Krzyzewski and Pitino. Wherever possible (if perhaps a team only was coached in up to three worlds previously) give that team to his original coach. Among the teams that had more coaches than are now available, asks if anyone would mind just switching straight up to a different, available team at the same or very similar prestige level. The remaining coaches either draft the remaining spots, or the schools can be randomly assigned by prestige. To maintain as fair as reasonable conference prestige, take the mean value of the current conference prestige levels across the current 7 worlds. Place the random coaches into the new three conferences as nearly as possible to their current level. For the coaches that are left outside the BCS (or Rupp's CUSA and any other legit mid majors) fill the new three mid majors. The talent levels their should immediately make them realistic competitors for the BCS schools and the game gets a lot more competitive and, IMO, more entertaining. Trickle down the remaining coaches until everyone gets a job. Start however many worlds that needs to be. I guessed three, but I didn't count how many jobs there are coz that was too hard. I tried for a minute or two but said **** it.. The other method for choosing teams could be a draft. You'd still maybe have to split things up, like with the BCS and CUSA Rupp, etc in one group, the mid-majors in the next and then the rest - split and D 3 up as well into maybe quarters or something if necessary. Do a live draft. Let everyone in to watch and comment. Allow trades of draft picks, but only for GCs (or blowies) and then publish the results. Give everyone a couple weeks to prepare, trade among themselves negotiate because their friend/son/neighbor/taiwanese child prostitute whatever isn't in their conference anymore. Be patient and generous. Allow quietly to allow for a small site credit (I recommend $5) for HD use only for users so inconvenienced they can't quite get over themselves (you'll find most of them here on the forums) (that's not necessarily a knock, lets call it satire) and accept that a few users might just walk away in a huff. The worlds would be full. The game would be dynamic. There might even be a spread of popularity and the need to create new worlds once again as there apparently was at some point in the distant past since we have all these worlds already. Who's with me?

Should WiS consolidate worlds for a more exciting and competitive game?

YES! It sounds like funNO, I like it the way it isWTF? Are you seriously this high?

How about just one new world where your coaching profile (to determine where you can apply) is based on your strongest coaching resume. That means a lot of competition for the jobs, and perhaps a tiered application process (BCS first, mid-majors, low majors, D2 top, D2 bottom, D3 top, D3 bottom, where their prestiges are averaged from all current conferences and used to determine their "tier"). That way those of us who could be convinced to trying a new league would have a fair shot, no one loses teams, and everyone focused on ONE new league increases your chances of it actually filling up.

Posted by tarvolon on 4/28/2013 11:06:00 AM (view original):Consolidating worlds isn't really a bad idea, but what would you do about coaches who have teams in more than three one-a-day worlds? I have teams in Naismith, Crum, Wooden, Allen, and Iba.

I have no good solution for coaches like you. One of the probably many reasons why its not a great idea when all is said and done...

Posted by tarvolon on 4/28/2013 11:06:00 AM (view original):Consolidating worlds isn't really a bad idea, but what would you do about coaches who have teams in more than three one-a-day worlds? I have teams in Naismith, Crum, Wooden, Allen, and Iba.

I have no good solution for coaches like you. One of the probably many reasons why its not a great idea when all is said and done...

Yeah, that's definitely the biggest problem I can think of. The other thing I can think of off the top of my head is conferences wanting to stay together. I'm sure that's doable, but it may be tricky.

I guess for people that have teams in every world, you could give them two teams in the new worlds. But that brings us back around to a whole debate that is equine and dead.

If I ever won Mega Millions or Powerball, I would pay WIS whatever it took to open an 11th HD world, probably in my name with perhaps some kind of speciality to it...maybe like a 3 or 4 game a day concept...it was certainly be a 2 game a day world...just thought I'd throw this out there...I know some/many of you think I have crazy thoughts, and this is one of them.

Posted by arssanguinus on 4/28/2013 2:15:00 PM (view original):If you were going to do that, just pay to give them several more programmers dedicated to just HD. Or open a permenant test world where proposed changes are tried out,

I don't think it's realistic to consolidate the worlds; it would alienate too many people and make them quit. That being said, if there's a way to make an eleventh world and have it open to the best coaches only (based on win percentage, total wins, championships, etc.) and have all or close to all of these coaches to join, that would be awesome.

I'd love to see full (or even more full) worlds. I think scrapping the current system would just cause way, way too much carnage.

lol, i have noticed that, too ;)

i would love to see fuller worlds, too. however, this 7->3 consolidation is WAY too much. maybe 7->5.

heres the issue. worlds have a critical mass. a full world would be a disaster, its the same reason that its hard to keep conferences full and stable in lower divisions - its hard to be the 12th man and enjoy yourself. so you might be full but theres normally rotation. now, SOME of us have the competitive spirit like, "every loss teaches me something, bring it on" type stuff. but most of us, and almost all the more casual folks, would not enjoy getting pummeled. sims have to exist so humans feel better about not being 300th best out of 300. if they are 150th out of 300, with 150 humans, that is just as bad - but it doesnt FEEL as bad.

the critical mass is not clear, it seems most humans need a shot at the post season, minimally, to stay happy. there are 96 post season bids. i could see 150, even 200 humans, but not 300. for what its worth, the world design i came up with when i consider such a thing, does NOT have **** like, 384 d3 teams in a world. i cut d3 in half, and put half the teams in world 1, half in world 2. that way whoever went to carnegie mellon can still find them somewhere to play them, if they really want, but in a single world, you dont need to be mostly empty to avoid the bottom third of coaches being totally miserable.

i think d1 has an even lower critical mass. a third of all d1 team were dropped by the horrendous recruit generation we know today. maybe it would work better with a full world, but i seriously doubt it. i think d1 is in a sad state, and it sucks mid major land is 80% empty. but i think adding 100 coaches to a d1 world would be a disaster. d2 in those worlds wouldnt even be fun anymore, any half way decent d1 prospect would get snatched up, and possibly a lot of the decent d2 prospects, too. d3 would then be affected as well. and d1 itself would be a blood bath. people like the competition, its what people have always seemed to love about d1, but having to drop SO far in quality when you lose out on a couple top prospects, has really driven coaches away. doubling the competition would only make it worse, i think.

"...it seems most humans need a shot at the post season, minimally, to stay happy."

Exactly why I vote that dac must be high. If I'm WIS, I'm shooting for about 1/2 full worlds, knowing that most players need to feel like they can be competitive in order to continue to shell out the cash. In completely full worlds with 984 teams, you're going to have ~700 disappointed coaches every year.

I'd love to see the 7 one-a-days contracted to about 4 and the 3 two-a-days consolidated into 1. When I first started playing HD about 8 years ago, if you wanted a specific D3 team, you had better be waiting up right at 3 a.m. when the world rolled over because if you weren't and you tried to wait until the morning to grab your team, it was looooong gone.

When Tark opened on the first day at 12 noon, I tried to grab a team at 12:15 p.m. and I was too late. No teams left. Every D3 team in that world was gone in less than 15 minutes. That was the heyday of HD, no doubt. The worlds were mostly full, very competitive, and extremely fun. Gotta disagree with you there CBG, full worlds weren't a disaster, by a longshot.

I understand what you're saying about coaches getting frustrated and quitting, but when I started, I took beatings for a few seasons. Didn't make me want to quit, made me even MORE determined to be successful. My take is a little different than yours, I guess. My take is that, yes, people want to be successful and experience success, sure. But the coaches you're talking about, the ones that quit after an unsuccessful season or two, well we probably didn't need them anyway. I'd rather have coaches that work to try to improve as opposed to coaches who have that "instant gratification generation" attitude and think that they're entitled to something and want the easy route instead of having to work to get to that destination............and oh good gracious, I just realized that I sound EXACTLY like Tbird right now, so someone please shoot me (but you get my point, I think).

What I'm saying is, full worlds with competitive, dedicated coaches would be a wonderful thing, not a disaster. You'd weed out the riffraff eventually by replacing those "entitled" coaches with the "dedicated" coaches over a period of time and then you'd have an extremely fun game to play, not a disaster. But that's just my opinion.